Could the UK have done a better job of maintaining carrier based air power?

[zen]

1. An insistence that EE possess something beyond a degree of luck in having the chance to produce one of their designs into not just a research machine, but an operational fighter.
Is according them something over the alternatives that isn't justified.

Fact is 3 companies developed operational fast jet combat aircraft for the RN.
DeHaviland
Vickers Supermarine
Blackburn

Of these two could have reasonably developed supersonic developments.

Furthermore we can add 'nearly ran' firms AWA and Saro who very nearly won various tenders or in the case of Fairey was awarded the FAW for a period.

2. It is entirely possible for the UK to have developed a SARH AAM and it nearly did. Several times.
But a smaller Sidewinder-like AAM.....? Not sure such exists in the 50's.

3. Scrapping the Audacious and Maltas ought to have opened up to 3 to 6 slips of roughly the right length at the right time for this 1948 Carrier.

4. TSR.2 had just about everything related to the next generation of combat aircraft as a developmental load on the effort. Which pretty much guaranteed to cause problems and blow out the budget.

It follows that had that load been distributed over various aircraft across a wider period of time. The risks per project are actually much lower.

 

[Arjen]

1. An insistence that EE possess something beyond a degree of luck in having the chance to produce one of their designs into not just a research machine, but an operational fighter.
Is according them something over the alternatives that isn't justified.

I think the EE Canberra should be considered, also the work EE did on TSR.2 before cooperation with Vickers was foisted upon them.

 

[uk 75]

I think the UK industry got a lot better in the 60s with closer ties to the US and Europe.

I think the RN exaggerated its need for the Phantom. The Sea Vixen was adequate for its needs up to 1972. AFVG would have then taken over from it and Lightning.

AFVG or Panther perhaps to go with Jaguar is the mini Phantom that the RAF and RN needs. It could have been in service a decade before Tornado.

A BAC Dassault Rafale would have begun to replace it in the 90s. No Harriers or F35B.

 

[zen]

I don't think it's Europe or America that improves British industry. Just reality and learning.

It's not exaggerated after '63, and TFX is in it's BARCAP fighter mission quite justified.

But I'll agree that AFVG as a sort of proto-ADV Tornado is not unreasonable an outcome.

 

[uk 75]

The NATO Striking Fleet Atlantic by 1963 is provided by either a Forrestal or Midway in its two Striking Groups. A UK carrier component is nice to have but not essential.
Until the withdrawal from East of Suez completes in 1972 Eagle or Hermes with Sea Vixens proved adequate for the various tasks they faced.
Ark Royal and her Phantoms had a busy time in the 70s so the Panther equipped Centaurs would have plenty to do.
Two Centaurs with Panthers and Buccaneers would have been handy in 1982 (though Nott like Healey before him was faced with the choice: SSNs or Carriers?)

 

[Archibald]

R-530 maybe ? Not worse than AIM-7B. How about Blue Dolphin SARH AAM?

 

[zen]

I think the EE Canberra should be considered, also the work EE did on TSR.2 before cooperation with Vickers was foisted upon them.

I think Vickers Supermarine were not inferior.
I might say these two and Avro had the most rational solutions to OR.339
I might even throw in DH as once you delve into the details their submissions to F.155, OR.339 and OR.346 are quite good.

Fairey by contrast was the only firm to have real experience on a radar guided AAM and their later submission was frankly a better basis than Vickers or Folland.
Similarly their Anti-ship Missile concept.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I think the only realistic is "no". Licence produce Sparrow, potentially with UK seeker eventually is probably a much better bet.

Red Top / Firestreak were very large, but this also misses the masses of on-aircraft systems they needed. It's definitely not just bolt then on the outside.

The UK did eventually build the Sparrow under licence as Skyflash. There was the version of Sparrow that Canada was building that was cancelled with the CF-105 Arrow. Perhaps there's scope for an Anglo-Canadian Sparrow project in the late 1950s

 

[Arjen]

I think Vickers Supermarine were not inferior.

My comment was not intended as a slight on Vickers. TSR.2 project management had to contend with the simultaneous ongoing merger of EE and Vickers et cetera into BAC. As it was, both Vickers as main contractor, EE as sub-contractor did valuable work, in a difficult environment.

 

[zen]

If....
If a combat aircraft of more advanced form than the Sea Vixen goes ahead.
On the basis of new homogenous carriers entering service from the late 50's to early 60’s. With minimum projected lives of 20 years.
Then the radar/missile efforts continue after 1957.

This results in the immediate future as AI.18 developments as per history but funded to service. Namely increases in radar performance and addition of SARH guidance system. Ultimately a limited look-down shoot-down capability with AMTI.

This also puts a fire under Ferranti to solve same with AI.23.
While longer term radar efforts would never lack the drive, since future fighters would be assured. A radar designated AI.24 would result. Though not Foxhunter.
Likely the FMICW system intended first for OR.346, then AW.406, then AFVG.
Which was resurrected to assist new digital only FMICW that became Foxhunter.

For simplicity and to avoid confusion we should name this new fighter radar something....

Consequently the SARH seeker effort for Firestreak to Red Top will result in a service missile and likely a all new AAM effort.

The longer term would resolve into the A5 seeker.

Nothing but the lack of an aircraft sets back UK efforts. With no plane yo fit it too there is no driving force to achieve the result.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

What about merging OR.343 and OR.346 instead of OR.356/ AW.406?

 

[Archibald]

The UK did eventually build the Sparrow under licence as Skyflash. There was the version of Sparrow that Canada was building that was cancelled with the CF-105 Arrow. Perhaps there's scope for an Anglo-Canadian Sparrow project in the late 1950s

Active Radar Homing Sparrow II ? Unworkable. The small antenna to fit in the Sparrow body needed an eletromagnetic band that was allergic to water vapor...

 

[zen]

What about merging OR.343 and OR.346 instead of OR.356/ AW.406?

OR.343 is a step along the path of OR.339 a.k.a the TSR.2

OR.346 is the product of the revolution in avionics. Otherwise it's OR.339 with a CAP fighter component added and navalisation.

Where you can achieve something is keeping RoA to 600nm and accepting variant builds rather than 'all singing and dancing' capabilities.

 

[red admiral]

I think Vickers Supermarine were not inferior.
I might say these two and Avro had the most rational solutions to OR.339
I might even throw in DH as once you delve into the details their submissions to F.155, OR.339 and OR.346 are quite good.

Well "Vickers" were the real winner for OR.339 giving a good enough airframe, but then the best avionics / avionics integration and programme approach. Rather than EE trying to stuff bits into an existing airframe design.

DH seem poorly rated in these competitions but I really feel that's because they actually provided realistic bids rather than the unachievable ones of others. But they were pretty over worked given they'd been given the ballistic missile work (the real priority) dead end, and Comet, and the guided weapons... A concentration on military aircraft from Vampire / Venom / 116 seems to be the "best" route to an all-weather supersonic radar fighter in the 60s

 

[zen]

Well "Vickers" were the real winner for OR.339 giving a good enough airframe, but then the best avionics / avionics integration and programme approach. Rather than EE trying to stuff bits into an existing airframe design.

Certainly Vickers Supermarine Type 571 seems to be a practical concept and their favourite being the Single engined Type 571 was probably amongst the most realistic. Essentially run off as variants rather than multirole.

DH seem poorly rated in these competitions but I really feel that's because they actually provided realistic bids rather than the unachievable ones of others.

My impression too, DH gave pragmatic answers and wasn't liked for it.

A concentration on military aircraft from Vampire / Venom / 116 seems to be the "best" route to an all-weather supersonic radar fighter in the 60s

I'd say DH.116 was a good enough solution until something like the F.155 or OR.339 or OR.346 could arrive.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

OR.343 is a step along the path of OR.339 a.k.a the TSR.2

OR.346 is the product of the revolution in avionics. Otherwise it's OR.339 with a CAP fighter component added and navalisation.

Where you can achieve something is keeping RoA to 600nm and accepting variant builds rather than 'all singing and dancing' capabilities.

I know. OR.343 and OR.346 both wanted 1000nm RoA and a 6000lb bomb load, so I don't think they're entirely incompatible. The requirement for 4 hours of CAP endurance requires plenty of fuel, as does low-level penetration for 200nm. Admittedly this does lead to a British TFX, but I feel the Royal Navy's requirements do seem closer to TSR2 than P.1154.

Fairly compatible timeline wise as well. Both are initially issued in 1959, OR.346 in January, and OR.343 in May.

VG, Speys and the Elliott M920 series of computers seems to make it much more technically feasible.

 

[Lascaris]

Musings on the cost of the Argus class
Part Two

The estimated cost of the 1952 Aircraft Carrier was £26 million in 1953
I want to build six of them.
Six times £26 million equals £156 million

In the "Real World" £148 million was spent as follows:

View attachment 714809​

I've included the cost of the Daring class because the some of money spent on the aircraft carriers 1945-50 in the "Real World" will be spent on bringing their completion forward from 1952-54 to 1948-50. In turn the money that was spent on the destroyers after 1950 in the "Real World" will be spent on the Argus class in this "Version of History".

Ok... so Britain builds nothing for 7-8 years between 1945 and 1953? This is... problematic.

We also have to deduct the money spent on completing Hercules & Leviathan in 1948. The mean Vote 8 cost of the Colossus (and I assume Majestic & Sydney) was £2.5 million and as the ships were at an advanced stage of construction the money required would have been trivial. However, if it was a trivial sum of money why weren't they completed?

Do we have numbers for how much each Colossus was sold to Canada, Australia, France, Netherlands et all? And how much was spent in addition completing/modernizing them?

 

[Scott Kenny]

I know it would be impossible for many reasons (east of suez and countless others) , but sometimes I wonder whether RN should not had pulled out an Aéronavale and switched to a 2*carriers format ASAP afer 1945. Basically HMS Eagle + another carrier, rebuild and modernized (Hermes seems the best of them all). And that's it.

You need at least 3 ships to keep one of them deployed 24/7.

2. It is entirely possible for the UK to have developed a SARH AAM and it nearly did. Several times.
But a smaller Sidewinder-like AAM.....? Not sure such exists in the 50's.

Remember what Sidewinder started out as: a seeker head for the 5" Zuni rocket.

I'm not familiar with British aircraft rockets, what rockets existed to be used for a similar concept in the RAF/RN stocks?

The UK did eventually build the Sparrow under licence as Skyflash. There was the version of Sparrow that Canada was building that was cancelled with the CF-105 Arrow. Perhaps there's scope for an Anglo-Canadian Sparrow project in the late 1950s

That was Active Sparrow, and could not be done at all with 1950s technology.

 

[uk 75]

The UK has a major problem with Variable Geometry and VSTOL designs at the beginning of the 1960s. Mixing the two in a single airframe is a recipe for disaster as the US and West Germans found again with AVS.
It is not until the second half of the 1960s that BAC influenced both by Dassault and General Dynamics produces the sensible AFVG and UKVG designs which are refined further into MRCA.
Yes Vickers, English Electric or De Havilland could have had a plane similar to the F4 ready to fly in 1960 but their paper plans were not that plane. So the UK (and Canada) have to look at the Phantom.
Sea Vixen FAW2 did serve the RN weil until 1972 in the main out of area roles (Beira Patrol, Withdrawal from Aden, various exercises). No it could not have tackled the Soviet threat in a General War but that in any case was the job of the Forrestals and Midways of the US 2d and 6th Fleets plus their Talos equipped flagships.

 

[zen]

I'm not familiar with British aircraft rockets, what rockets existed to be used for a similar concept in the RAF/RN stocks?

Well there are radar guided AAM efforts going back to the early 40's.
But there was the 5' boosters for Fireflash....
‐-------

In terms of a supersonic fighter that can be produced by the early 60’s the answer is Vickers Supermarine Type 576 which can be applied to Scimitar production off the line.

This is more a twin engined Crusader in performance terms. Albeit with a higher rate of climb and acceleration.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

The UK has a major problem with Variable Geometry and VSTOL designs at the beginning of the 1960s. Mixing the two in a single airframe is a recipe for disaster as the US and West Germans found again with AVS.
It is not until the second half of the 1960s that BAC influenced both by Dassault and General Dynamics produces the sensible AFVG and UKVG designs which are refined further into MRCA.

Seems to be an entirely non-existent problem, pretty much all of the British VG designs from the 1960s such as the Vickers Type 583, 585, 589, and 590 were all conventional take-off aircraft, as were the VG TSR2-derivatives.

The only exception to that was Blackburn P.135 and Vickers Type 583V.

 

[uk 75]

The Vickers designs were related in part to work on TSR2 and in some cases were planned to succeed it. They would all have been too expensive which is why they never left the drawing board.
DH129, BAC 583V and 584 as well Blackburn P135 were too complicated and make nice drawings. I even have models of some of them.
AFVG is the evolution of these types and remains in my view a missed opportunity for both UK and France.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Well there are radar guided AAM efforts going back to the early 40's.
But there was the 5' boosters for Fireflash....

I meant "what are the UK unguided rockets in the ~130mm diameter, or that had decent range to be turned into a guided missile via a bolt on seeker head?"

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Ok... so Britain builds nothing for 7-8 years between 1945 and 1953? This is... problematic.

Utter tosh! Britain builds rather a lot between 1945 and 1953 in my "Version of History". I sighed like Spot the Cat and then groaned like Ted Cassidy's Lurch when I read your badly written statement/question. I'm rather pleased that I waited until Boxing Day before reading it.

Some facts for your perusal.

Fact One. The British shipbuilding industry was building merchant ships in considerable quantities 1945-53 to:

• Rebuild the British Merchant Navy so it could increase the UK's invisible exports as part of the export drive.
• Build as many ships as possible to increase the UK's visible exports as part of the export drive.
  • Giving priority to the construction of merchant ships was an important reason why the Audacious and Centaur classes took so long to build.
• Therefore, Britain wasn't building nothing between 1945 & 1953 or as "wasn't building nothing" is a double negative it was building something, namely millions of tons of merchant ships.

Fact Two. In case you were only referring to warships Britain was building warships between after 1945 too.

• As I understand it work on the Audacious and Centaur classes (especially Hermes) was stopped for long periods between 1945 and 1951-59 when they were eventually completed so cancelling them in 1946 is likely to be less problematical than you think.
• 14 A class submarines were completed 1946-48 - That's after 1945.
• 3 Colossus class (Theseus, Triumph & Warrior) weren't completed until 1946 - That's after 1945.
• 2 Majestic class (Magnificent & Sydney (ex-Terrible)) weren't completed until 1948 - That's after 1945.
• 2 Majestic class (Bonaventure (ex-Powerful) & Melbourne (ex-Majestic)) were being built at a slow rate 1945-53 to be completed in 1957 & 1955 respectively - That's after 1945.
• 2 Majestic class (Hercules & Leviathan) were completed in 1948 instead of being suspended in 1946 - That's after 1945.
• Vanguard wasn't completed until May 1946 - That's after 1945.
• The Tiger class was suspended 1946-54 in the "Real World" so cancelling them in 1946 isn't problematical in this "Version of History" because they weren't being built between 1945 & 1953.
• 16 Battle class destroyers were completed 1946-48 - That's after 1945.
• 4 Battle class destroyers were completed 1947-48 - That's after 1945.
• 4 Black Swan class frigates were completed in 1946 - That's after 1945.
• 13 Loch/Bay class frigates were completed 1946-50 (including the 4 completed as survey ships) - That's after 1945.

Fact Three. In case you were only referring to warships Britain was building warships before 1953 too.

• In the "Real World".
  • 2 Explorer class submarines were laid down 1951-52 - That's before 1953.
  • 2 frigates were laid down in 1952 - That's before 1953.
  • 18 frigates were laid down in 1953 - That's during 1953.
• Furthermore, in my "Version of History" the aircraft carriers Argus, ALT-Eagle & ALT-Hermes were laid down in 1950 - That's before 1953.

Fact Four. The Daring class.

• In the "Real World".
  • 2 were laid down in 1945 and completed 1952-53.
  • 2 were laid down in 1946 and completed in 1953.
  • 1 was laid down in 1947 and completed in 1954.
  • 1 was laid down in 1948 and completed in 1952.
  • 2 were laid down in 1949 and completed 1952.
• In my "Version of History".
  • The 2 laid down in 1945 were completed 1948-49.
  • The 2 laid down in 1946 was completed in 1949.
  • The one laid down in 1947 and completed in 1950.
  • The 3 laid down 1948-49 were laid down in 1946 and completed in 1949.
• Therefore, they were built between 1945 & 1950 (instead of 1945 & 1954) - That's between 1945 and 1953.

Therefore your statement/question.

Ok... so Britain builds nothing for 7-8 years between 1945 and 1953? This is... problematic.

Is 100% untrue.

Points of good English. The first sentence was a statement, but you ended it with a question mark. If you wanted to make a statement you should have ended it with a full stop or an exclamation mark.

Ok... so Britain builds nothing for 7-8 years between 1945 and 1953. This is... problematic.

Or.

Ok... so Britain builds nothing for 7-8 years between 1945 and 1953! This is... problematic.

If you were asking for confirmation that Britain builds nothing between 1945 and 1953 the word so should have been replaced with the word does and builds with build.

Ok... does Britain build nothing for 7-8 years between 1945 and 1953? This is... problematic.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Do we have numbers for how much each Colossus was sold to Canada, Australia, France, Netherlands et all? And how much was spent in addition completing/modernizing them?

Why do you want to know?

 

[zen]

Can we develop a lighter and more streamlined Red Top? I want a British Phantom, may I have it armed with a British Sparrow?

You can.
You can have what seems to be Fireflash II
a.k.a Fairey Semi-Active Radar Weapon.
Offered up to OR.1131. Model exhibited 1955 Farnborough Air Display.

10ft 11" long, weighing 500lb fitted with continuous rod warhead.
Using CW J-band SARH with illumination by OR.3576 radar, possibly AI.18

You can also have the option of Blue Jay mk.5 to OR.1117 with a CW semi-active seeker.
Which was resurrected as Blue Dolphin in 1957.

 

[Lascaris]

Utter tosh! Britain builds rather a lot between 1945 and 1953 in my "Version of History". I sighed like Spot the Cat and then groaned like Ted Cassidy's Lurch when I read your badly written statement/question. I'm rather pleased that I waited until Boxing Day before reading it.

Good for you. I would now advise something about taking comments in stride but I learned not to have high expectations. That said the question remains. Why is the admiralty and the British government, virtually freezing its fleet carrier program, at the very time it is recognizing fleet carriers as its primary capital ship to the end of the Korean war and while its existing 6 fleet carriers have a multitude of issues from short hangars to accumulated war damage till 1952 what they decide to proceed with construction of the 1952 carrier? Further assuming something in the order of 4 years to complete a carrier at a minimum, with the new ships laid down in 1953 how does the RN deal with having no modern fleet carrier till 1957? The RN will be left with how many fleet carriers when the hypothetical HMS Argus enters service? Let me see.

HMS Illustrious: decommissioned 02/1955
HMS Formidable: decommissioned 08/1947
HMS Victorious: possibly in service. Of course given no modernization why can it serve beyond its other sisters without a modernization?
HMS Imdomitable: decommissioned 10/1953. Cannot handle jets.
HMS Implacable: decommissioned 09/1954
HMS Indefatigable: decommissioned 09/1954

So the admiralty has decided to leave itself with a single fleet carrier and... up to four Colossus class ships? Why the treasury agreed to transfer the money the RN failed to use in 1946-52 to post 1952 budgets? You can't exactly put money allocations in say the 1950 budget to a fund to use 5 years later, the treasury will just take the money and refuse increasing the budget post 1953.

Some facts for your perusal.

Fact One. The British shipbuilding industry was building merchant ships in considerable quantities 1945-53 to:

• Rebuild the British Merchant Navy so it could increase the UK's invisible exports as part of the export drive.
• Build as many ships as possible to increase the UK's visible exports as part of the export drive.
  • Giving priority to the construction of merchant ships was an important reason why the Audacious and Centaur classes took so long to build.
• Therefore, Britain wasn't building nothing between 1945 & 1953 or as "wasn't building nothing" is a double negative it was building something, namely millions of tons of merchant ships.

How is that affecting the RN fleet carrier situation? It does not.

Fact Two. In case you were only referring to warships Britain was building warships between after 1945 too.

• As I understand it work on the Audacious and Centaur classes (especially Hermes) was stopped for long periods between 1945 and 1951-59 when they were eventually completed so cancelling them in 1946 is likely to be less problematical than you think.

Eagle entered service 1951. Ark Royal 1955, Centaur 1953, Albion and Bulwark 1954, Hermes last of all in 1959. What is replacing the first 5 for service prior to 1957?

• 14 A class submarines were completed 1946-48 - That's after 1945.

Not carriers. Irrelevant to maintaining an operational RN carrier force.

• 3 Colossus class (Theseus, Triumph & Warrior) weren't completed until 1946 - That's after 1945.

Warrior is going to Canada. Theseus and Triumph are light carriers carrying how many aircraft or what type each?

• 2 Majestic class (Magnificent & Sydney (ex-Terrible)) weren't completed until 1948 - That's after 1945.

Going to Canada and Australia respectively. Irrelevant to maintaining an operational RN carrier force.

• 2 Majestic class (Bonaventure (ex-Powerful) & Melbourne (ex-Majestic)) were being built at a slow rate 1945-53 to be completed in 1957 & 1955 respectively - That's after 1945.

Going to Canada and Australia. Again irrelevant.

• 2 Majestic class (Hercules & Leviathan) were completed in 1948 instead of being suspended in 1946 - That's after 1945.

Neither was actually completed in OTL. Lets accept both are completed early in TTL... even though they are not budgeted for in the calculations. How much would each cost? No idea but, if the Centaurs averaged 10.5 million quid each, about 8 million each to complete them to a modern standard seems about right.

• Vanguard wasn't completed until May 1946 - That's after 1945.

A battleship with guns designed in 1912. Worse than irrelevant. A waste of resources. Yes yes, a carrier could not operate its aircraft in high seas with bad weather till some time in the late 1950s. Why any of the KGVs could not handle the job and any Soviet cruiser or battleship (here we laugh) found on its way?

• The Tiger class was suspended 1946-54 in the "Real World" so cancelling them in 1946 isn't problematical in this "Version of History" because they weren't being built between 1945 & 1953.

I'll actually agree cancelling all three is a good idea. Of course the RN still wants to have cruisers but that's a separate question

• 16 Battle class destroyers were completed 1946-48 - That's after 1945.
• 4 Battle class destroyers were completed 1947-48 - That's after 1945.
• 4 Black Swan class frigates were completed in 1946 - That's after 1945.
• 13 Loch/Bay class frigates were completed 1946-50 (including the 4 completed as survey ships) - That's after 1945.

Not carriers. Again irrelevant to the question.

Fact Three. In case you were only referring to warships Britain was building warships before 1953 too.

• In the "Real World".
  • 2 Explorer class submarines were laid down 1951-52 - That's before 1953.
  • 2 frigates were laid down in 1952 - That's before 1953.
  • 18 frigates were laid down in 1953 - That's during 1953.

Not carriers. Guess what. Irrelevant.

• Furthermore, in my "Version of History" the aircraft carriers Argus, ALT-Eagle & ALT-Hermes were laid down in 1950 - That's before 1953.

Now we are getting to something useful. Deciding on a new class of carriers around 1947-48 with construction starting around 1950 is a logical proposition... if you can convince the government and the treasury why it is going to be more efficient and cheaper than completing the 6 fleet carriers in various stages of construction. Or how many additional jobs and votes for Labour they can get. How do you convince them? I'd like to see them convinced. Hell if you have a plausible way of doing so and are so inclined I promise to include them in Lost Monkeys. After all I did have HMS Victorious sunk in action while loaned to the USN for a reason in that one.

Only these are not the 1952 carrier you write about unless somehow HM government enlisted the services of a Time Lord with TARDIS to bring it the plans from the future. So if your TL is the Attlee government deciding on a new class of carriers around 1948 we can discuss it. IMO at a minimum Eagle and possibly Ark Royal or Centaur would had gone forward nevertheless but you can likely posit the new ships in place of the Victorious modernization and the two followup Centaurs plus the money that went to the Tigers. And you can put all Centaurs to be, up for sale to foreign navies as well.

Fact Four. The Daring class.

• In the "Real World".
  • 2 were laid down in 1945 and completed 1952-53.
  • 2 were laid down in 1946 and completed in 1953.
  • 1 was laid down in 1947 and completed in 1954.
  • 1 was laid down in 1948 and completed in 1952.
  • 2 were laid down in 1949 and completed 1952.
• In my "Version of History".
  • The 2 laid down in 1945 were completed 1948-49.
  • The 2 laid down in 1946 was completed in 1949.
  • The one laid down in 1947 and completed in 1950.
  • The 3 laid down 1948-49 were laid down in 1946 and completed in 1949.
• Therefore, they were built between 1945 & 1950 (instead of 1945 & 1954) - That's between 1945 and 1953.

Again not carriers.

Therefore your statement/question.

Is 100% untrue.

Points of good English. The first sentence was a statement, but you ended it with a question mark. If you wanted to make a statement you should have ended it with a full stop or an exclamation mark.

Or.

If you were asking for confirmation that Britain builds nothing between 1945 and 1953 the word so should have been replaced with the word does and builds with build.

Hint. When discussing construction of aircraft carriers, expect people to worry about construction, or lack therefore, of aircraft carriers not oil tankers and bulk cargo ships. And when you talk about copies of the 1952CV again expect people to take into account the timetables for something designed in 1952 and laid down at some point afterwards not something magically designed and starting construction several years earlier. And of course on the impact this has on existing fleet levels.

Why do you want to know?

It's an obvious question. Particularly with HMS Leviathan around to sell off to frex Italy or Spain in some alternate timeline if the price is reasonable.

 

[zen]

Sequence where a PoD might be developed from is listed.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/rn-post-war-carrier-conundrums.10464/

 

[Scott Kenny]

How is that affecting the RN fleet carrier situation? It does not.

(...)

Not carriers. Again irrelevant to the question.

Not carriers. Guess what. Irrelevant.

You do understand that there's a limited number of large construction slips and/or drydocks available for use, right? Building large merchant ships in those drydocks means you can't build carriers. Building Vanguard in one of those spots means you can't build a carrier there.

Lots of either/or choices, and frankly, replacing the UK merchant fleet is almost as important as rebuilding the UK RN capital ships!

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

OR.343 is a step along the path of OR.339 a.k.a the TSR.2

OR.346 is the product of the revolution in avionics. Otherwise it's OR.339 with a CAP fighter component added and navalisation.

Where you can achieve something is keeping RoA to 600nm and accepting variant builds rather than 'all singing and dancing' capabilities.

I think 1000nm RoA is an absolute necessity for any joint-RAF-RN OR.343/OR.346 merger to survive, just to keep one of the major stakeholders, the RAF, onside to prevent them from killing the project in favour of TFX/F-111K.

The cancellation of F-111K was far more traumatic for the RAF than the cancellation of TSR-2, as the latter was merely replaced with another, albeit American, 1000nm RoA Platform, whereas the former was the RAF's last chance to get such a platform into service and thus maintain the service's capability of long-range strike.

The joint OR.343/346 merger does have some opportunities for economies of scale, as it has potential to replace Canberra, SACEUR Valiants, Sea Vixen, Buccaneer and to act as a potential interceptor to meet the requirements of the 1964 Jones Report.

Interestingly the desired All-Up-Weights of OR.346 and the RAF's preferred 1964 Jones Report Interceptor are identical at 50,000lbs.

 

[zen]

Errr OR.346 was a joint programme. What triggers it is improvements in electronics which clearly make it possible to squeeze everything down.
TSR.2 fixed avionics compartment and systems too early.

Previously the 1952 efforts had focused on a 500nm radius for carrier air as good enough.

What is more reasonable is merging 600nm RoA with 300nm of NMBR.3 into one platform.

Strategic bombing looses out to ballistic missiles and leaves only rapid task-able reconasense.

 

[JFC Fuller]

I know. OR.343 and OR.346 both wanted 1000nm RoA and a 6000lb bomb load, so I don't think they're entirely incompatible. The requirement for 4 hours of CAP endurance requires plenty of fuel, as does low-level penetration for 200nm. Admittedly this does lead to a British TFX, but I feel the Royal Navy's requirements do seem closer to TSR2 than P.1154.

Fairly compatible timeline wise as well. Both are initially issued in 1959, OR.346 in January, and OR.343 in May.

VG, Speys and the Elliott M920 series of computers seems to make it much more technically feasible.

OR.346 in its original incarnation was joint in name only, the RAF viewed it as a VG R&D programme whereas for the RN it was their entire future fast-jet capability. The RAF withdrew, claiming it wasn't doing what they wanted, only for it to be mandated by the cabinet defence committee that future aircraft programmes be joint. As a result, a common requirement was developed between the services for a TSR-2 and Buccaneer replacement generally written as OR.346/355, the two phases tend to get confused.

As a result of only the RN being interested in turning the original OR.346 into an operational aircraft it would have been a single-service, and therefore less compromised, TFX. The RN's fighter requirement was conceptually very close to the F-111B and they copied and pasted the OR.339 strke requirement into OR.346, which is why they were compatible. Had the RN dropped the 80 knot landing speed requirement and allowed a higher maximum take-off weight (e.g. 60k lbs) I feel the original OR.346 was probably achievable.

I have previously suggested an earlier merging of RN and RAF strike requirements through the RAF adoption of a Buccaneer derivative, followed by a joint programme based on the original OR.346 requirement, could have been an economic means of delivering combat air capability for both services in the 1960s and 1970s.

 

[Archibald]

OR.346 was like AST.396... way too much advanced tech gizmos and gadgetry for just one RFP.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

A VG OR.346 basically just means a bigger, earlier Tornado, the aircraft would have to be larger and heavier to meet the requirement in full, or alternatively if forcing weight down is the main priority, performance could be slightly reduced. I think in this case VG, Speys and the Elliott M920 series of computers are required to constrain aircraft size.

I was thinking of a forced merger of RAF and RN requirements in the early 1960s at a Ministerial level, exactly what happened with the Hawker P.1154, but instead being done with the more compatible OR.343 and 346 rather than . This technically leads to an earlier cancellation of TSR-2, but does mean that all the work on avionics can still be salvaged, reducing development costs. This marriage also greatly incentivises m the stakeholders of the project to stay with it, in the case of the RAF to ensure they have a long-range strike aircraft, in the case of the Royal Navy this also provides a justification for their larger carriers. For the Government this also has advantages, as it ensured that a single airframe and two different avionics systems which are already in development (TSR2s avionics, and the various Elliott FMICW AI radars intended for new generation fighters/ interceptors) can meet the requirements for 4 different requirements across the two services (the Royal Navy's Sea Vixen and Buccaneer replacement, the Royal Air Forces' Canberra replacement and later, their 1964 Jones report interceptor).

With VG eating the R&D funds, Hawker Siddeley gets told to build a conventional CTOL aircraft with a single engine (probably Bristol Siddeley, since this in the early 1960s Conservative Government which still wants to provide some industrial support to the other remaining UK fighter and engine manufacturers) in lieu of P.1154.

Very much a sausage-maker's aircraft, not quite achieving every goal, but it forces the RN and RAF to work together, since each service's preferred futures are both dependent on it.

 

[uk 75]

Neither the RAF nor the RN will accept a single engined fighter in this period. Engines are just too unreliable.
Buccaneer S2 is the joint RAF/RN strike aircraft once you lose the requirement to operate East of Suez.
AFVG is the 70s fighter/attacker which DH129, Vickers 581 and co are working toward.
Filling the gap between Sea Vixen and AFVG is not necessary if you get AFVG which I call Panther into service around 1972 (instead of Jaguar) on Hermes and Foch.
Panther operating replacements for the two classes could be designed and built in the 70s though France may want nuclear power.

 

[uk 75]

I am not a fan of VSTOL (solution in search of a problem) and even with F35 hitech the A and C versions are much better than the B.
A Centaur sized carrier with an innovative catapult system in the 70s might have been possible instead of the Invincible Command Cruisers.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Neither the RAF nor the RN will accept a single engined fighter in this period. Engines are just too unreliable.

The RAF literally did, it was the Hawker P.1154. I suggesting that in this alternative timeline, with the OR.343/346 hybrid too expensive to do CAS, there still being a requirement for a cheap Hunter replacement, and with VG R&D eating the funds, Hawker can't mess around with PCB, and vectored-thrust BS.100, they're forced to design a Jaguar-esqe CTOL aircraft built around a single straight-through BS.100 turbofan at best, or single Olympus at worst (single Spey and Medway are possible alternatives, but I expect the early 1960s Conservative government to want to continue to support Bristol Siddeley).

The OR.343/346 hybrid kills off Buccaneer 3/2*, and the RAF and RN are forced to cooperate, because they're going to share their next generation high-end strike aircraft/interceptor, requirements which both institutions are much more emotionally attached to than the P.1154.

I don't think this POD requires much effort, all it requires is for Peter Thornycroft to get the "bright idea" to merge OR.343 and OR.346 into a single joint-service VG aircraft instead of getting the "bright idea" to merge OR.356 and AW.406 into a single joint-service VTOL aircraft (as happened in OTL).

Fundamentally the requirements for a twin-seat twin-engined STOL all-weather interdictor are much more compatible with the requirements for twin-seat twin-engined carrier-based all-weather interceptor/strike aircraft, than the requirements for a single-seat single-engined VTOL fighter-bomber are with the requirements for twin-seat twin-engined carrier-based all-weather interceptor/strike aircraft.

 

[uk 75]

The Hunter replacement aircraft in our timeline is the twin engined Jaguar (initially it is the Phantom with three RAF Air Support Command sqns).
The RAF hated 1154 nearly as much as the Navy did and P1127RAF was forced on them. Given a choice between Harriers and Tornados in 2010 the RAF choose Tornado.
To Archibald's great joy my AFVG Panther survives instead of Jaguar.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Some entries to AST.362 were single-engined, and both the Hunter and it's original intended replacement were single-engined. A contemporary fighter-bomber designed around providing CAS, the Vought A-7, was also single-engined. I see no reason why the RAF would not be entirely happy with a single-engined Hunter replacement.

 

[zen]

1959 Vickers worked on scaled TSR.2 Type schemes to meet OR.346/ER.206
These being fixed wing designs ER.206/1
Scheme A and B seem just scaled Type 571s, while Scheme C used the TSR.2 like delta.
None of these fulfilled the requirements completely.

They turned to VG first with the four engined Type 581 ER.206/2 in 1960.

ER.206/3 Used fold down sections on the fixed portion of the wing closest to the fusilage and two turbofans designated.

In 1962 Type 583 was originally a research machine for the larger VG wonder plane. But in developed form could replace Sea Vixen at a weight of 40,000lb or Buccaneer at 50,000lb. By 1964 BAC was pointing out this could operate from existing carriers with BS4 catapults of 151ft stroke and uprated mk13 arrestors.
It was again suggested after P.1154 cancellation in 1965.

1963 Type 589 was a ln Avon powered research machine for VG, but readily develope-able into a Strike aircraft to meet OR.346 designated Type 590.
Interceptor configured weighed in at 47,846lb and Strike at 48,070lb.
RB.168s were an option.

Purely on a Navy basis, designing future carriers for aircraft like Type 583 would massively ease the design and building of such. Though in cost terms accepting compromise on a fixed wing design saves time and money.